Bush and forest planning - what a shock

[Guest]

Democrats Criticize Bush Forest Plan
Reuters
Apr 7 2003 5:41PM

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Bush administration should drop proposed rules to streamline forest management because the changes would reward the U.S. timber industry while damaging pristine wilderness and wildlife habitat, 107 Democratic members of the House of Representatives said on Monday.
In a letter to President Bush, the Democrats said the administration wanted to remove public participation in forest planning and ease rules designed to protect 192 million acres of national forests.

"We are deeply disturbed by the scope and breadth of recent initiatives undertaken by your Administration to transform national forest policy," the letter said.

Lawmakers said proposed changes to the National Forest Management Act and National Environmental Protection Act were nothing more than "radical proposals" that give the U.S. Forest Service more power to change forest policy with little public input.

"The cumulative effect of these Administration proposals would be to significantly lower environmental standards for our national forests to a level far below what is now required for other public lands," said Rep. Nick Rahall, a West Virginia Democrat who signed the letter.

"The U.S. Forest Service would be much less accountable to the public, or the judiciary, regarding commercial logging and other land-use decisions," he said.

The letter was also signed by Rep. John Dingell of Michigan, the ranking Democrat on the House Energy and Commerce committee.

The Bush administration said the proposed forest rules were not intended to boost access to forests by large timber companies, but were needed to remove some unnecessary and cumbersome environmental requirements that slow down efforts to protect forests.

Among the rules proposed by the administration include the "Healthy Forests Initiative" that would trim some environmental regulations in 10 million acres of fire-prone forests to speed the removal of dangerous underbrush and dead trees that serve as fuel in spreading wildfires.

And in November, the administration unveiled a plan it said would "cut out red tape" and reduce court appeals that have muddled forest policy by giving local forest managers greater control over commercial activities in 155 federal forests.

Both proposals have yet to be approved by Congress.

04/07/03 17:39 ET
(article is a link)

[Gretchen]

And this is where the ACCESS Fund should be stepping in, working on the national legislative side and lobbying for maintianing the necessity of continued public input into the forest planning process. The red tap thing is bullsh&t. Streamline the process, I can see, but eliminating the public input is ludicrous.

[Guest]

And this is where the ACCESS Fund should be stepping in, working on the national legislative side and lobbying for maintianing the necessity of continued public input into the forest planning process. The red tap thing is bullsh&t. Streamline the process, I can see, but eliminating the public input is ludicrous.

welcome to the new world. Makes me skeered to be honest.

[kato]

What influence does public input have under the current law? Got details? Honestly, when it comes to long term preservation of natural resources, I'm not sure I want "public input" to play a big role. I know too many people who would just as soon cut it all down. Then there are the people who want to preserve it, but don't understand how. Forest fires are not always bad, and if people go in and meddle, trying to "preserve" things the way they are, they might end up doing long term damadge.

[ynot]

"Public input" means simply that they take the time to listen to you,then they do as they please. "Streamlining" is just that,makes it easier to rape the forest.

[discojett]

What influence does public input have? You're shitting me, right???

[kato]

disco;

No, I'm not "shitting" you, you are apparently reading only the first six words of the post. Let me clarify: under the current rules/policy, what are the provisions for "public input"? Is there a citizen's board? Do they take polls on the street? Do they hold public referendums? What I am asking is, specifically, what part of the rules that are being cut pertains to "public input"?

M.

[discojett]

http://www.forestwatch.org/content.php?id=122

[kato]

Disco;

Thanks for the link. It contains similar information to the article above. I went and found some other stuff, namely the text of NEPA (first link below) as well as descriptions of the policy that these articles find objectionable (other links).

After reading these, it sounds like the objections are based more on partisanship than any concern for forests. If this is not the case, do the opponents of this plan have some alternatives to the solutions that this plan is trying to solve?

http://ceq.eh.doe.gov/nepa/regs/nepa/nepaeqia.htm
http://www.whitehouse.gov/ceq/hfi_usda- ... -11-02.pdf
http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/healt ... sts_v2.pdf

M.

[discojett]

Actually it is based on concern for the forests. What this "Healthy Initiative" does not do is focus thinning along the urban interface, enviros have no problem with this type of thinning. Its when you open up backcountry "thinning", which is actually just logging, nothing to do with fire management. Its a veiled attempt to let timber companies cut more trees, period. Fires in Colorado got so hot in places that past attempts at thinning did nothing to stop them. Now, thinning along the urban interfaces make sense, thats where people live, so they are in direct danger.

Whitehouse.gov will not tell you the facts on these issues.

Very similar to GW's "Clear Skies Initiative". It falls very short of meeting the goals of the Clean Air Act, and Carbon Dioxide emmisions are not cut at all.